Historical landmarks, such as the HMS Belfast, were often seen surrounded by modern buildings.
As I mentioned in my last blog post, this trip will be my first time out of the country. London has always been a city I have wanted to see, and this trip did not disappoint. In a lot of ways London reminded me of a large US city, specifically New York. However, London has a longer history and it was evident everywhere you looked. Modern day shops and conveniences seemed seamlessly built into the skyline, paired nicely with the historic landmarks. The skyline was not the only thing that seemed to combine the old with the new. On my first day in London a few of us had the opportunity to go to the British Parliament. Unfortunately, we were not able to get an actual tour of Parliament. Instead we got to watch Parliament in session, which was an interesting experience.
Traditional tourist shot of Big Ben. Big Ben is attached to the Parliament building.
After making our way through security we found our way inside of the Parliament building. As the center of the British government it should come to no surprise when I say that the building itself is massive and beautifully decorated. With the high ceilings, stained glass windows, and regal statues, it reminded me of several cathedrals I have been in. Once we had traversed through the front entrance of Parliament we found our way to the House of Commons. The House of Commons was already in session. They were in the middle of what they called “Urgent Questions.” The question we walked in on was concerning safety in British Prisons. This particular “Urgent Question” did not seem to inspire very much debate. Most of the people who were talking seemed to be in agreement, and the people who talked spent their time making statements rather than challenging the proposed improvements to the prison system. They addressed each other as the “honorable gentleman” or “honorable lady” and seemed to fit my overall assumption of what British politics would be like, polite and functional.
The next “Urgent Question” was where things got interesting. The Secretary of Education was proposing a new protocol for British education. This new proposal would require all schools to become academies by 2020 in effort to improve the British educational standard. The proposal in question was met with stiff backlash from those who opposed it, which included teachers, parents and students. We were able to gather from the statements prepared by the Secretary of State that this proposal had been introduced on Friday, May 6th already and many people had already voiced their displeasure for it. The Secretary of State had been notified that making all schools into academies would be brought up again so she had a response to the Secretary of Education’s statement already prepared and things began to escalate. The Secretary of State scolded the Secretary of Education for even bringing the topic back up as the majority of people had already voiced their opposition for it the previous Friday. She said, “I fear that the Secretary of Education has put her fingers in her ears and refuses to listen.” Gone were the pleasantries and social order that were present in the previous “Urgent Question.” They were replaced with people talking over one another, accusations being thrown around and the Prime Minister having to call for order on more than one occasion.
We left about halfway through this discussion, as we had been sitting in the public gallery for over an hour by that point. As we were leaving one of the government officials directed us to the House of Lords. When compared to the House of Commons a few things stood out. The first were the signs directing visitors where to go. The signs leading to the House of Commons read “Visitors Entrance” whereas the signs pointing to the House of Lords read “Strangers Entrance.” These signs indicated the fact that the general public was more welcome to watch the House of Commons at work than the House of Lords. Next, the galleries where the public could sit had some obvious differences. The House of Commons had relatively comfortable seating and plenty of it. In addition, there were TV screens set up so that visitors could see who was talking on the floor. In the House of Lords, there were no TVs, and the seating provided was on stiff, wooden pews. Pretty to look at, not so comfortable to sit in. The House of Lords was also more lavishly decorated. With a beautiful golden throne being the centerpiece of the room. We were informed that next week the queen would be addressing all of Parliament from
Statue of Oliver Cromwell that we saw in the courtyard on our way inside Parliament. Oliver Cromwell was an English military and political leader who lived from 1599 until 1658.
this throne. The final difference between the House of Commons and the House of Lords were the people who were a part of their respective House of Parliament. In the House of Commons there was more diversity. There were men and women spanning various age groups and ethnicities at work. In the House of Lords most of the people working were old and white. There were both men and women, but the men outnumbered the women.
In comparing the two Houses of Parliament it is obvious that the House of Commons represents the new, and more updated traditions of the British government and by extension, the British people. The House of Lords on the other hand seems to represent the old British tradition. Much like the skyline of London incorporates old, traditional buildings, in addition to the new modern buildings, the British government also unites the old and the new, creating one whole unit.